Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

    So I realize a lot of people put no stock in Hollinger what so ever, and thats cool. However, I thought this was worth a look anyway...

    Hollinger has Hibbert ranked as the 5th most productive rookie in this class on a per minute basis... not only that, but as the 15th most productive center in the league... per minute. Some of the rest of the list looks suspect, and Hollingers stats cant really measure defense... but I think there is "something" to it. You just have to keep in mind it doesn't necesarily mean "better" just more productive.

    Another interesting thing is among the top 20 centers Hollinger has listed is that the vast majority play 30 minutes per game or more, the lowest being 22 minutes per game, except Hibbert... who sticks out like a sore thumb with a whopping 12 minutes per game average despite the level of per minute production.

    I don't know, just a thought. Maybe he should play more... see if that production bears itself out.
    Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 02-09-2009, 12:28 AM.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

  • #2
    Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

    he should play more and be put into a situation on the defensive end where he can succeed (around the basket) and not fouling on help defense 15+ feet away from the basket.
    with the current situation why the hell is Rasho playing over Hibbert? he won't be a pacer next year,(cap room needed *crosses fingers and hopes we land Millsap*) and we are not winning with him. He doesn't stay in foul trouble like Roy but I do think Roy gets put in bad spots on D, but he needs experience and did I mention we are not winning and Rasho is gone at season end.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

      All of his numbers, outside of his rebounding (fouling, too), are fantastic on a per-minute basis. Very nice scorer, dominant shot blocker, and most surprising of all, really impressive passing skills. He's definitely the center of our future.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

        People will blast any "per" stat because of the unfair comparison, but the problem is that if you aren't touting a guy as the best because of the stat then it's really a strawman complaint.

        Here's why we care about "per" or "+/-"...they suggest that MAYBE you might want to give a player MORE TIME or try him against BETTER PLAYERS. So okay, Roy gets 35 mpg or faces the better players and his PER and +/- drop to crap. At least you found out, at least he got the same chance that the guy ahead of him with poor numbers was getting.

        Why not find out if Roy can keep a PER like that with 18-20 per game instead of 12? And then bump it to 25, and so on. The stat clearly says that Roy is earning a chance to show more, and yet he's struggling to get that chance which is why we are all pulling our hair out.

        It's doubly maddening considering what a great kid he is. And as always this basic feeling applies to Rush and McBob too.


        ****ANOTHER STAT TOPIC (RUSH) ****
        *******************************
        Rather than start another thread I'll just throw in my Rush-bad losses post here instead if you don't mind. In the post game tonight I said that it seemed like they had more bad losses since Dun came back and I decided to investigate. Turns out that was wrong, they've had some but they had some before he returned too.

        HOWEVER, I did keep looking and noticed this. They have had 10 losses of 10 points or more. 6 of those are 18+ and all of those have happened since December 3rd.

        In the 3 worst, 20, 24, 24 Rush saw 7, 8, and 11 minutes. In the 3 18 point losses he saw 24, 26, and 28 minutes. So okay, not as simple as if he plays it's okay.

        BUT...his +/- in these 6 losses
        18 -1 in 26 min
        18 +6 in 28 min
        20 -2 in 7 min (Roy was +0 too in decent minutes)
        24 +4 in 11 min (Roy was -1 in decent minutes)
        24 +3 in 8 min

        I realize that +/- in low minutes is a hard sell, but the point on those games is that he barely played and clearly didn't have some massive negative impact. In the ones he did play a bunch his units were actually winning or keeping things tight in the midst of an otherwise blowout.

        And I left one out, the other 18 point loss saw him with a -24 in 24 minutes, and that's bad. But here's the next catch, that was the first bad Pacers loss and it was back on Dec 3rd. In fact Rush's 4 worst +/- efforts in the Pacers 10 worst losses all came prior to and including the Dec 3rd game.

        He was -19, -6, -8, and -24 in losses of 10, 13, 14, and 18 (respectively). This was basically in NOV. Since then the team has had it's 5 worst losses, and in that -6 outing Jack and Quis had even worse +/- efforts.

        Rush has played big minutes in several games since Dec 3rd, including a couple of the blowouts as mentioned. It's just that in those games he's far less "the problem". And yet just like Roy he's somehow not proving himself.

        It is starting to get really frustrating.

        Rush started really hitting the bench, low minutes (sub 10 most nights) thing to start the year. In NOV the Pacers didn't give up 120. In DEC the first time they gave up 120 Rush didn't play. For all of NOV they gave up 120 3 times, the game he didn't play, the 18 point loss he was +6 in and the GSW win in which he was +11 despite terrible 4-17 shooting.

        In JAN he stopped playing basically and the Pacers gave up 120 in 6 games. The only time he played more than 10 minutes in the month was the 105-103 win vs NYK, the 113-110 win vs PHX, and his 26 minute game vs SAS that they lost 99-81 in which he went -1 on the night and was praised by Quinn, Paetz and plenty of others for showing that confidence everyone was looking for, one of the rare bright spots on the night. That got him DNP'd for the next 3 games.

        He got 22 the other night and they held ORL to 102 points.

        Unfortunately the one fly in the ointment of all this just happened when he played big minutes and went -11 while they gave up 119 to WSH. No denying that. But it's still the oddity here, not the norm. If anything there is something to be said for Butler's scorching finish that got them here and especially burned him.

        I'll need to see more than one game to think the past 3 months of improved defense when he plays and fewer blowouts is just pure chance.

        And my feelings on this is that Roy has had some similar results without having pulled the details on it yet.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

          JOB needs to keep his head out of his a$$ and Hibbert's a$$ off of the bench. I don't care if he picks up 2 fouls in a few minutes, let him stay out there and learn how to control himself if he wants to be on the court. He wont get calls until he's earned respect. He wont get the respect of officials until he gets more playing time. Definitely the center of our future.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

            We want Hibbert !!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

              I want to say two things:

              1. I agree that Hibbert should be playing more consistently. He does have a ways to go, but his development has been far more consistent than his rookie running mate Brandon Rush. To me, he has been remarkable in his ability to constantly build upon his ability, maximizing his time on the floor, while showing no ill effects from his erratic playing time.

              2. When using John Hollinger and PER to support the argument for more minutes, you should always expect to have two words hurled at you in refutation: Ike Diogu.

              As to the Rush +/- numbers, I'd have to look at the individual games. The only thing I'd say about Rush is that, to me, the waxing and waning of his minutes have been far more understandable to me than Hibbert's. That is to say, when he's gone to the bench, IMO, he deserved to go to the bench. The last time he was demoted, he was playing very poorly. He has an odd cycle to him. There are times where I believe he is actually hurting himself on the floor. That is to say, he's gets into a cycle of bad habits, and his play degrades. He has, oddly, responded poorly to playing well, and well to being benched. In other words, his best performances to date have been followed by a swoon. However, benchings seem to sometime act as a "reset" button.

              In effect, what I'm saying is that I do not understand, and I am not happy with the way the O'Brien handles Hibbert, (though I'm thrilled with the way Hibbert deals with it). However, I don't have a whole lot of problem with the way that he's dealt with Rush. I believe Brandon will be a good player, but he tends to press more than Hibbert does. Roy goes out and takes successes and failures in stride, always getting something from them. Brandon tends to be more adversely affected by both...for what reason, I couldn't say.

              (BTW...I don't think Brandon will ever be a "stat" guy. In other words, you're not going to be able to look at a box score and see if he played well or not. I think this may be where Seth is going with the McKey comparisons.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

                I remember a comment JOB made regarding disciplining Hulk for an outburst and a technical. He said something like, "This isn't Jermaine O'Neal or some veteran, I am going to deal with Harrison."

                It bothered me. A double standard. JOB will play hardball with rookies but not vets.

                I wonder if he uses rookies to "come home and kick the dog." The Hibbert benching is causing me to lose some respect for our coach.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post

                  In effect, what I'm saying is that I do not understand, and I am not happy with the way the O'Brien handles Hibbert, (though I'm thrilled with the way Hibbert deals with it). However, I don't have a whole lot of problem with the way that he's dealt with Rush. I believe Brandon will be a good player, but he tends to press more than Hibbert does. Roy goes out and takes successes and failures in stride, always getting something from them. Brandon tends to be more adversely affected by both...for what reason, I couldn't say.
                  In general, I agree with you here. I do wonder about how O'Brien uses Rush when he's on the court, however. To me, Rush seems to become a better player once he makes a shot. This was especially evident in the Orlando game. After he made that 3 pointer, he was taking guys off the dribble, making good passes and tough turn-around jumpers. It was about the same last night. After he got the 3 point play, he became more aggressive and effective offensively.

                  The conclusion I would draw from this would be to run a couple of plays for Brandon as soon as he enters the game. Right now he seems to be told to go stand in the corner and wait for a kick out. That's fine occasionally, but when you combine it with his habit of being too passive offensively, it's a bit counter-productive. I'd really like to see O'Brien run him off a couple screens or put the ball in his hands for a pick and roll on his first offensive possession. To me this would seem to tell Brandon, "I want you to assert yourself on both ends of the floor."
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

                    I know that JOB's contention with Roy is that he fouls too much but the one thing I've noticed is that when Roy fouls someone, he's challenged the shot well and the player rarely gets an "And 1" opportunity.

                    Now compare that to when Murphy and Rasho fouls someone. Usually Murphy or Rasho is behind the player, either from being out of position or sliding over to the weakside late on help defense. Also, they allow a ridiculous amount of "And 1" opportunities - especially Murphy.

                    So what Roy fouls a lot. So did Smits his rookie season. Even Shaq fouled out nearly 30 times his rookie season. Eventually, they learned and evolved. They still fouled a lot throughout their careers but usually it stopped a layup or dunk attempt and made the player earn the points from the line when they fouled someone.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

                      I think this may be where Seth is going with the McKey comparisons.)
                      FTW!

                      I watch him closely and I still disagree that he's really been much better or worse over the season, other than shot making. His thing is filling in all those gaps that aren't steals, aren't blocks, aren't points for him or even TO's created. They are things like "your man was going to waltz down the lane but I stepped in and forced him to kick it out to a not very good jump shooter" or "you left your guy wide open so I covered the passing lane just as the PG was looking to throw him the rock, but then thought better of it".

                      Remember how guys just stopped throwing at Deion Sanders? There's stats and then there's effective.

                      Count - his +/- hasn't been great all the time, and I don't deny that the +/- is a tough sell for absolute value, but my application here was just to say that when the team gets killed or gives up huge points, it basically has little to do with Rush other than perhaps he didn't get to play.


                      Rush is not an offensive player either, which is the bigger McKey comparison and one I said long before he got to Indy. He's that guy that likes to defend even away from the ball, plays a smart all-around game, but often has little interest in scoring even though he's not too shabby at it. I mean it's crazy how consistant that aspect has been since the first game I took note of him. He goes off every now and then, but he's just as likely to pass up a shot. That's not new, that's who he is and any decent scouting should have told Bird/JOB just that. I also don't think you measure him having a good or bad game by how much he shoots. Gotta watch him away from the ball to really have a grasp of how he did that night.


                      And I think we were clear that we realized the Ike factor with Roy when it comes to PER. All I said was let him play till he either wrecks that PER or makes good on it. What do we have to lose...literally. I mean he's not playing much regardless, so either his PER is good or it isn't. Do we use a LOW PER as justification to play him more????

                      No one is saying it means he IS great, we are saying would it be so bad to look into the situation further. In my coaching days if a guy put up stats that surprised me, I took note and reevaluated my instincts and gave them a shot to keep it up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Fun with Hollinger Stats: Roy Hibbert

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        And I think we were clear that we realized the Ike factor with Roy when it comes to PER. All I said was let him play till he either wrecks that PER or makes good on it. What do we have to lose...literally. I mean he's not playing much regardless, so either his PER is good or it isn't. Do we use a LOW PER as justification to play him more????

                        No one is saying it means he IS great, we are saying would it be so bad to look into the situation further. In my coaching days if a guy put up stats that surprised me, I took note and reevaluated my instincts and gave them a shot to keep it up.
                        I think you're preaching to the choir here about playing Hibbert and BRush more.

                        JO'B mentioned earlier in some Post or Pre Game interview that Roy was doing well on the Offensive end but lacking on the Defensive end....which was one of the reasons why he doesn't get as much burn. Has your evaluation of Roy included how he has done on the Defensive end?

                        I'm not questioning why you think Hibbert should be playing more....other then JO'Bs apparent preference to go with a more Atheletic lineup....it just seems that his mistakes on defense is one of the reasons why JO'B prefers not to play him.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X